If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is there anybody here who is in the dark about that? Anybody confused about that? No? Okay, good.

Now, let's talk about the so called "marriage" amendment.

"Vote for marriage" is deceiving.

I'm all for marriage. I'm actually traditional on this subject in sense that I think that marriage should be between two unrelated people (cousin marriages allowed in some states. Gross), and I actually think the two people should stay together until death do they part. If you have the attitude that it's cool to get married now and then get a divorce later, then you need to stop right where you are.

I'm so much for marriage, that I think gay people should be allowed to join the club. Now, what's the worst thing that happens if gays are allowed to marry? Can they force churches to accept their union? Absolutely not. How about force churches to perform the ceremony? Absolutely not. The Roman Catholic Church not only doesn't accept gay marriage, but they also do not accept divorce and remarriage. Unless a divorced person gets an annullment through the church, the church will refuse to perform a new marriage ceremony and will even not allow a member to take communion if they're remarried. That's because their marriage isn't accepted in the eyes of the church. The law accepts it, but not the church.

So this idea that religious people would somehow be forced into accepting gay marriage as legit just because the law does is an invalid argument. You can still tell them their marriage isn't valid. You can still tell them that their soul is in danger. You can still claim their somehow a threat to your family. Your right to act like an idiot on this subject will stay in place. You do not have to accept gays or gay marriage just because it's legal.

Now, let's discuss the so called "marriage" amendment in NC even further. It says that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only domestic union. This means there is no room for common law marriages for heterosexuals in the future. It also puts a damper on domestic violence laws. Right now, our laws protect unmarried couples living together, people who live together in general, people who date, people who used to date, people who share a child, etc. Now, so called marriage proponents say we're being deceitful with that. However, experts from the UNC School of Law says it's true.

Now, let's discuss the rest of this. If a couple allowed visitation or custody rights to a domestic partner, this can be invalidated now. Some counties (mostly the liberal ones I'll admit) were allowed to allow healthcare benefits to domestic partners (gay and straight). This law passes, and those counties will no longer have that option.

You can make a will saying who gets what, but it can take months to apply a will.

Power of Attorney? Better keep that piece of paper with you at all times. Even then, somebody could try to challenge the validity of it.

So, I usually make my point and go. Not this time. I'm asking, more like begging people, including people here who might live in NC to vote against this amendment. Don't do it for gays. Do it for your own family. Do it for the people you know who could be affected by this. Do it for them. Gay marriage will still be illegal, and the chances of it ever being made legal here in NC is very very slim. The federal government would have to get involved. No way would gay marriage come here to NC on a state level.

So, I'm actually being bold enough to ask people here to vote against it. And yes, I know which board I'm on.

Lanie you truly are one gullible person.

Protection from and/or prosecution of violence against another individual has nothing to do with marital status. Wills & POA have been litigated since their inception,again has nothing to do with marital status. Those so called legal opinions from UNC school of law are just baffling the masses with BS. Defense attorney's can make any argument they want,doesn't mean it will float in a court of law.

The way things are going I wouldn't be too surprised if Someday soon churches are forced to do a lot of things they are against. For example provide contraceptives and/or abortions ( sound familiar ?).

The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.

Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

Yes, I am divorced. Let's look at what the Bible says about my situation, shall we?

Matthew 5:32
Divorce
32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

You see, I had someone who couldn't keep her legs closed, let alone keep her vows. In my case, the act of divorce, is allowed. Will I get married again? Not to anybody from this state, they're not exactly trustworthy around these parts...

Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
Ronald Reagan

We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
Ronald Reagan

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

I will never accept homosexuality.An amendment, a law, a whatever doesn't make homosexuality normal or acceptable. It is deviant AND a sin... period!

And non-reproducing mutant.

It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi

Originally Posted by Carol

When I judge someone's integrity one key thing I look at is - How does s/he treat people s/he doesn't agree with or does not like?
I can respect someone who I do not agree with, but I have NO respect for someone who puts others down in a public forum. That is the hallmark of someone who has no integrity, and cannot be trusted.

Gay marriage is up for a vote in our state this May. An amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Simple enough.

Signs are popping up in support and opposition of the amendment. Most of the support signs say "Marriage - One Man One Woman - Vote Yes on Amendment One"

The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".

Why can't the left just say what it means?

Why not signs that say "Bone Smugglers should be able to marry too" or "Let Lezzies Live in Matrimony"?

This thread is why the left won't say what they mean, because to do so opens up massive social, cultural, political, and religious debates that can't be resolved with a ballot initiative or fit on a sign. Gay marriage has serious ripples, such as Christians who run businesses having to legally recognize unions that are an affront to their beliefs in their hiring practices, benefits, and other areas. Legalization could theoretically force preachers to perform marriage ceremonies or face crippling discrimination lawsuits. The increasing in various negative social activities has gone right alongside the decline in traditional marriage, making a possible connection easy to hypothesize.

The same logic can be applied to most liberal talking points. The OWS/99% is a huge oversimplification of a myriad of stuff that serious discussion of is just too difficult and multifaceted to guarantee signing up to the lib spin, so is drug legalization, abortion, ect. Rather than run the risk of real thought being applied, since that might cause a person to not fall hook line and sinker for the lib line, they obfuscate, gloss over, create slogans, and then beat them into everyone's head. Much easier than researching, coming up with evidence to support their argument, keeping track of that evidence, and the like.

Romans 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Differences between Obama and God: God's plan to save us is actually written down for people to read. Rush Limbaugh.

1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.

2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.

2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?

There's two interesting things I noticed in this post.
1. you're an idiot.
2. You didn't answer the question the OP asked.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)